What exactly is an RPG?

NotAcasul

NotAcasul

meanie
It's something that's been bothering me for a while now, and I thought since you guys are pretty well versed in this sort of stuff I thought you could offer something crucial.

"A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development."

This is wikipedia's definiton, but wouldn't this mean games like Super Metroid constitute as role-playing games, as you play a role within a fictional setting?

If anyone could provide some clarity, that would be great.
 
Unfortunately that vague wiki description of role playing games includes pretty much every game ever made.

As a game genre, I believe there is usually more emphasis on either character creation from the bones up, or in something like the Witcher where you already have a predesigned character, the emphasis is on their choices shaping their future and/or that of the surrounding game world in a variety of ways, with a side of stat fiddling to make them more or less useful to specific playstyles.

The variety in either style becomes the key to defining the genre to me.
If I can't play a variety of characters by designing my own down to fiddly little stats and perhaps devising their backstory and motivations for myself outside the game, I want to have many options for who the premade character will be with me at the helm and how they will solve problems or interact with the world.

If you get too far away from having a lot of choice in who and what your player character is, the role playing game genre seemingly devolves into something akin to an adventure game, where you are more or less stuck with a couple of endings and fairly linear or limited pathways to getting to that point that has been decided ahead of time, along with a character that was designed for this story and path. This is where tomb raider/far cry/uncharted style games come in.
 
I'd say that today the meaning of the term is roughly a game that has a heavy emphasis on either choice with different outcomes or/and in depth character developement via leveling or acquiring loot. At least that's what you would see under steam rpg section, and i guess that is a good global measure of the term.
 
My thoughts on this are split to be honest.
I like to think a RPG is where the game puts emphasis on adopting the character as ones own in game analog vs. "random guy 1, you make linear choices".

Game developers can accomplish through a variety of methods but the best choice for introducing new players to the genre is by giving them a blank slate, for the player to design and develop on their own.

Of course the developers can provide a "character" and attempt to get the players to adopt this personality while playing the game. But in this case a great deal of considerable effort must be put into the character to ensure that the player controlled character is just as dynamic as the individual controlling him/her/it.

Here lies the shattered attempt of Bethesda's work in RPG for the Fallout universe. The created 2D characters and attempted to force players to identify with their characteristics.

The lack of dynamics prevented all attempts to role play.

But at the same time you can pick up a cheap game with very little involved and almost immediately identify with the character simply because the developers chose not to get in the way of the natural immersion process that happens when people play games.

Take the game Kingdom for example, it starts by giving you a random king or queen riding a horse adventuring through a heavily forested area. Soon players begin to understand their surroundings and the game unfolds. Coaxing players to assume the role of their potential in game counterpart organically and without words.

Soon players find themselves worrying bout their peasants, their military, and projects, much like a king/queen would.

When it comes to RPG immersion is everything, if the immersion fails, everything fails.
 
Ideally [I would say], it is a game carefully designed to react to a player's political choices; ideally 'in character' ones that may all have an effect on the narrative in some way. Games like DOOM, Super Metroid, or Super Mario, don't do this; and are not RPGs ~IMO.

A game that lets you roleplay Gandalf in Middle Earth, should have situations that require decisions that would pose a dilemma to Gandalf [specifically], and/or allow for his character and insight, (and limitations!)... A game where he just beats up orcs, buys new staffs, and helps Hobbits stay alive... would probably be a terrible RPG, if it could be called one at all.

Gandalf would not just choose a side to help or refuse help, he [as opposed to some random PC] would be weighing the politics of any actions, and of the actions that might spring from those actions; take risks with friends lives in order to apply his influence where the weight would best aid his cause, or prevent future risk to it or his allies; or to gain new allies. This could mean not helping someone who needs it, and the player should get the XPs for that choice ~rather than the game call it a failed quest.

That's Gandalf... That's the role (in this case).

I have read accounts by people that actually believe that a roleplaying game cannot [dare to] provide a role.
(And where doing so makes it not a roleplaying game ~to them.)
bonk1_zpse3e41648.gif


** And yet ~actually, the more fleshed out the role, the better the developer can tailor the scenarios to the PC; and better interpret the player's actions ~in character.

*** That doesn't mean that they shouldn't allow custom player designed PCs (of course), but it does suggest that the addition of immutable background aspects are a not always the utter evil that some make them out to be, as they allow for constants in the PC that the designers can count on and customize for.
 
Last edited:
Gizmojunk said:
Ideally [I would say], it is a game carefully designed to react to a player's political choices; ideally 'in character' ones that may all have an effect on the narrative in some way. Games like DOOM, Super Metroid, or Super Mario, don't do this; and are not RPGs ~IMO.

A game that lets you roleplay Gandalf in Middle Earth, should have situations that require decisions that would pose a dilemma to Gandalf [specifically], and/or allow for his character and insight... A game where he just beats up orcs, buys new staffs, and helps Hobbits stay alive... would probably be a terrible RPG, if it could be called one at all.

Gandalf would not just choose a side to help or refuse help, he [as opposed to a random goblin or troll] would be weighing the politics of any actions, and of the actions that might spring from those actions; take risks with friends lives in order to apply his influence where the weight would best aid his cause, or prevent future risk to it or his allies; or to gain new allies. This could mean not helping someone who needs it, and the player should get the XPs for that choice ~rather than the game call it a failed quest.

That's Gandalf... That's the role (in this case).

I have read accounts by people that actually believe that a roleplaying game cannot [dare to] provide a role.
(And where doing so makes it not a roleplaying game ~to them.)
bonk1_zpse3e41648.gif
Click to expand...

If we are only limiting them to affecting the narrative, wouldn't visual novels also be considered RPGs?

tumblr_inline_mldmvoft9G1qz4rgp.png
 
Could be... I have read [paperback] books where you not only decide choices for the protagonist, but they can get into fights and the book has dice combat based on the character, to see if they survive the encounter.

It depends on how deep the conversations go in the interactive novel, and what can actually come of it. If the choices mostly lead to the same outcomes, then it's not really bending over backwards to facilitate an interactive world that responds to player choice.

________________

One reason that I do not consider recent Bethesda titles as RPGs, is that I cannot justify a game [as an RPG] that does not hold the player to the PC they have developed. An RPG should have a vast world to it, but should only deal out [to the player] what little of it their PC is capable of experiencing or gaining access to. If the PC is an inept conversationalist, then the player should never see the kind of responses that a skilled conversationalist would get from an NPC ~nor reap the benefits of convincing them with conversation. Make a PC that hits things with a stick, and most conversations should play out about as well as if they hit them with their stick.

Bethesda [their track record I mean] seems only concerned with an appearance of the experience... IE a theme park style interpretation of concept. It's why their FO3 PC can find medical supplies in an abandoned house 50' off a main road ~200 years after the war.
 
Last edited:
I agree and disagree, I think the stigma about the role provided is the fact that in many cases the provided character is simply a wet sack of nothing.

Not saying that games have never done this correctly as plenty of old school rpg's did a fantastic job of in character role play. But today a majority of developers simply just gloss over it and fail to realize the potential in the characters they create.

Also the sad fact remains that this current generation does not understand a lot of the basic nuances that accompany RP and fervently believe that "Role Play" is something linear rather than loose and free.

I had a discussion similar to this one a couple years back at a lecture where the point was to identify what role playing is. It almost always boils down to a mindset and the perception of the world around the player. That is why I feel immersion, particularly in a game like Fallout is required simply because breaking it can disable the illusion.

Imagine if you will your character is a disgruntled bad ass roided up to the heavens and encounters a small child playing with a toy. The child looks at your character and asks if you would like to play. (For the sake of simplicity I'll narrow the options)

You can:
A): play with the kid and the toy
B): Brush the kid off and go along your way
C): Roid the hell out and freak the poor kid out with your unfiltered rage

Considering the character (I'm sorry is a small sample) which do you think is the most likely option the character would follow through with?

As for narrative novels, I can't say for certain simply because it depends on the content and the individuals perception of the text. If the reader feels as if they are playing the role and making choices for that character, I don't see why not.
 
An RPG is a game that allows you to roleplay as different characters. The more variety in how you can roleplay the better of an RPG it is. As to what a role is, it is about defining the character you're playing as. What is your strength and weaknesses (skills and stats) what is your moral code (quests) what is your personality (dialogue)? A game that allows you to create a role at the start of the game and then try to give you options to adhere to that role as best as possible is what is an RPG to me.

It means giving the player choices and it also means smacking the player down whenever they get in over their character's head. It means that when you're faced with a situation (quest) then you should be able to deal with it in as many ways as possible. It means that when you engage with other characters that you can display some fucking emotion and personality. Far too few "RPG's" handles dialogue well. Most of it is just straight forward business talk.

I mean, think of how you can fuck around with that shopkeeper in Reno and piss him off by insessently(?) babbling on about your old tribal life. Or how about demanding that that guy up in Modoc cut off his own finger if he really wants your help in dealing with the creepy farm? That is what dialogue should be about. That is something it should offer. Some fucking character.

Fuck, I should be able to roleplay as Hillary "Bullpuss" Clinton if I so damn please and while the game's writers can't account for every possible dialogue variation fitting for characters it should damn well try to.

So what is an RPG? Play some PnP with some other people and you'll see what it is.
 
Einhanderc7 said:
As for narrative novels, I can't say for certain simply because it depends on the content and the individuals perception of the text. If the reader feels as if they are playing the role and making choices for that character, I don't see why not.
Click to expand...
It may [and should ~IMO] depend on context... What if the character is minutes out of an ambush with two of their friends dead? Or what if they just learned from another NPC that the child was terminally ill?
[Or had simply learned in that moment that their wallet was gone; and that someone in town was a pickpocket...]

Technically one can have an RPG where the PC is in jail ~and never escapes their cell... but that leads to the discussion of good RPGs and bad ones.

:grin: Imagine Pappilon the video game.

I think one can have a superb RPG... that is boring as hell; and a pathetic RPG with addictive gameplay.
 
Last edited:
R.Graves said:
No cuz pokemon iz sold as a rpg. U don't need all dat fansy shit.
Click to expand...
Mr Fish was referring to what someone said on Pc Gamer comments, if you click on the spoilers tag in my signature and look at the fifth quote you will see it :lmao:.
 
These are the features that define an RPG for me:

-Some sort of character creation/development system
-choice and concequence
- actual roleplaying (i.e via dialogue choices, blank character background etc.)

Choice and concequence being the most important among those, in my opinion. The ability to roleplay/create a character coming in a close second. By my own definition, Fallout 4 barely qualifies as an RPG.
 
AlphaPromethean said:
These are the features that define an RPG for me:

-Some sort of character creation/development system
-choice and concequence
- actual roleplaying (i.e via dialogue choices, blank character background etc.)

Choice and concequence being the most important among those, in my opinion. The ability to roleplay/create a character coming in a close second. By my own definition, Fallout 4 barely qualifies as an RPG.
Click to expand...
Can't agree more. Character creation and the possibility to make choices is the definition of RPG for me as well.
For the best ticket prices and full list of Dixie Chicks tour dates click here.
 
Last edited:
I cannot disagree more, FO4 is not a RPG. It forces players through a linear path where all choices amount to the same effect.

In a RPG the choice of the player is what matters the most. Take that away and you have nothing more than a rail shooter.

We are all aware of the (4) options for dialog, but when you boil them down (3) of them are yes and the last one is "not right now". This does not constitute a viable system for role playing nor does it encourage players to do so.

Character creation does not mean you may role play, only that you have the option available to customize your avatar. Granted customization helps with role play, but only if those choices in character some how affect the grant scheme of the world.

In older RPG's you could chose a specific race, and because of that race the player may have have to deal with different forms of interaction with the NPC's. Chose a dwarf and wander into a town notorious for hating dwarfs and you won't receive the warm welcome one of their own kind would.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people believe Bethesda's "Character Creation" is viable for role playing as it itself has no impact on the game what so ever other than cosmetically.

I will re-affirm that FO4 is not a RPG, and it is insulting to all good RPG's out there to say that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top